Concurrent Jurisdiction Is Not a Carte Blanche to Bypass Sessions Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Direct Anticipatory Bail Plea under Section 482 BNSS

“Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Are Not Meant to Circumvent Established Judicial Procedure — High Court’s Jurisdiction Not for Direct Access in Ordinary Circumstances,” In a significant ruling aimed at reinforcing procedural discipline in anticipatory bail matters, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 15 October 2025, dismissed a criminal petition filed directly under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking pre-arrest bail in a wildlife poaching and arms possession case. The petitioner, Sri Chitakayala Nataraju (Accused No.2), had approached the High Court without first availing the remedy before the Sessions Court, which holds concurrent jurisdiction under the law.

Delivering the judgment in Criminal Petition No. 9963 of 2025, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held that:

“Though this Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, such discretionary relief would only be granted when the petitioner establishes a special case or extraordinary circumstances.”

Finding no such exceptional grounds in the petition, and relying on recent binding precedents, the Court declined to entertain the plea and granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender and seek anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge.

“Pre-Arrest Bail Must Begin at Sessions Court — High Court Is Not a Forum of First Resort Unless Exceptional Circumstances Are Demonstrated”

The case arose from O.R. No. 251 of 2024–25, registered by the Forest Range Officer, Vempalli, in Y.S.R. Kadapa District, involving serious allegations of illegal hunting of a Schedule-I species — the Chowsingha (Tetracerus Quadricornis), a protected wild animal under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, along with possession of prohibited arms under the Arms Act, 1959.

The petitioner was accused under a range of statutory provisions, including:

• Sections 9, 2(16), 39(3)(a), 39(3)(c), 42, 44(a)(v), and 51(1)(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

• Sections 303(1), 303(2), and 325 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023

• Section 20(1)(C)(ii) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

• And critically, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, which prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years, extendable to fourteen years.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail directly before the High Court under Section 482 BNSS, invoking the Court’s inherent powers.

However, Justice Rao unequivocally held that:

“This Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, as he has not approached the learned Sessions Judge concerned at first instance.”

“Inherent Jurisdiction Must Not Become a Shortcut — Supreme Court Says High Court Should Avoid Entertaining Direct Pre-Arrest Bail Pleas”

The judgment heavily relies on two recent decisions of the Supreme Court:

1. Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC

2. Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC

Quoting from Mohammed Rasal, the High Court underscored the importance of procedural discipline:

“The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 CrPC (now under Section 35 BNSS) in relation to all cases in the district. If the practice of entertaining applications directly in the High Court is encouraged... the High Court would be flooded with a spate of pre-arrest bail applications thereby creating a chaotic situation.”

The Court reiterated the view of the apex court that the practice of first approaching the Sessions Court acts as a filter, allowing High Courts to examine cases that have already undergone one level of judicial scrutiny. In Jagdeo Prasad, the Supreme Court had criticized High Courts for bypassing the Sessions Court without recording any reasons, thereby disrupting the balance between expediency and judicial process.

In this context, Justice Rao made it clear:

“This Court, despite having concurrent jurisdiction, shall not entertain anticipatory bail petitions directly unless a strong justification is made out by the petitioner.”

“Protection Under Section 35(3) BNSS Not Available Where Any Offence Is Punishable Above Seven Years”

The petitioner had further argued that since most of the alleged offences were punishable below seven years, he should be entitled to the benefit of Section 35(3) of BNSS, which provides procedural safeguards for offences punishable up to seven years.

Rejecting this argument, the Court clarified:

“As seen from the record, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959, which is punishable with imprisonment up to fourteen years. Hence, the benefit under Section 35(3) of the BNSS cannot be granted.”

Even though the petitioner was employed as an Attender at IIIT, Edupulapaya, and claimed innocence, the Court found that the nature and gravity of the offences alleged—particularly involving Schedule-I wildlife and prohibited arms—justified denying him any indulgence under Section 482.

“No Special or Extraordinary Circumstance Made Out — Inherent Jurisdiction Not a Forum for Routine Bail Relief”

Summarising the legal position, Justice Rao held:

“Such discretionary relief would only be granted when the petitioners establish a special case or extraordinary circumstance. As seen from the averments, the petitioner has neither established a special case nor any extraordinary circumstance.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal petition, vacated interim relief, and granted liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks and move for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court.

The Court directed that the application for anticipatory bail, once filed before the Sessions Court, be disposed of:

“...in accordance with law, on its own merits by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor concerned, and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time, preferably in two (02) days.”

Pre-Arrest Bail Must Respect Judicial Hierarchy — High Court Not a Default Option

This judgment is a clear affirmation that High Courts cannot be treated as courts of first resort in pre-arrest bail matters. Even under the new BNSS regime, the principle of judicial hierarchy and discipline in procedural access remains paramount.

By denying direct access to Section 482 in the absence of special circumstances, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reinforced that “concurrent jurisdiction” is not synonymous with “unrestricted access.” Petitioners must first approach the Sessions Court, allowing the judicial system to function with efficiency, hierarchy, and accountability.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2025